THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
A.D. 553
Emperor.--Justinian I. Pope.--Vigilius
Elenchus

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 419.)

[The Emperor's Letter which was read to the Fathers.]

In the Name of our Lord God Jesus Christ. The Emperor Flavius Justinian, German,
Gothic, etc., and always Augustus, to the most blessed bishops and patriarchs,
Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius of Alexandria, Domninus of Theopolis,
Stephen, George, and Damian, the most religious bishops taking the place of
that man of singular blessedness, Eustochius, the Archbishop and Patriarch
of Jerusalem, and the other most religious bishops stopping in this royal city
from the different provinces.

[The following is the letter condensed, including Hefele's digest. History
of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 298.]

The effort
of my predecessors, the orthodox Emperors, ever aimed at the settling of
controversies which
had arisen respecting the faith by the calling of Synods.
For this cause Constantine assembled 318 Fathers at Nice, and was himself present
at the Council, and assisted those who confessed the Son to be consubstantial
with the Father. Theodosius, 150 at Constantinople, Theodosius the younger,
the Synod of Ephesus, the Emperor Marcian, the bishops at Chalcedon. As, however,
after Marcian's death, controversies respecting the Synod of Chalcedon had
broken out in several places, the Emperor Leo wrote to all bishops of all places,
in order that everyone might declare his opinion in writing with regard to
this holy Council. Soon afterwards, however, had arisen again the adherents
of Nestorius and Eutyches, and caused great divisions, so that many Churches
had broken off communion with one another. When, now, the grace of God raised
us to the throne, we regarded it as our chief business to unite the Churches
again, and to bring the Synod of Chalcedon, together with the three earlier,
to universal acceptance. We have won many who previously opposed that Synod;
others, who persevered in their opposition, we banished, and so restored the
unity of the Church again. But the Nestorians want to impose their heresy upon
the Church; and, as they could not use Nestorius for that purpose, they made
haste to introduce their errors through Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher
of Nestorius, who taught still more grievous blasphemies than his. He maintained,
e.g., that God the Word was one, and Christ another. For the same purpose they
made use of those impious writings of Theodoret which were directed against
the first Synod of Ephesus, against Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and also
the shameful letter which Ibas is said to have written. They maintain that
this letter was accepted by the Synod of Chalcedon, and so would free from
condemnation Nestorius and Theodore who were commended in the letter. If they
were to succeed, the Logos could no longer be said to be "made man," nor
Mary called the Mother (genetrix) of God. We, therefore, following the holy
Fathers, have first asked you in writing to give your judgment on the three
impious chapters named, and you have answered, and have joyfully confessed
the true faith. Because, however, after the condemnation proceeding from you,
there are still some who defend the Three Chapters, therefore we have summoned
you to the capital, that you may here, in common assembly, place again your
view in the light of day. When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came
hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing
the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even
by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still
his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he
anathematised the Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know
that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three
Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop
of Aries, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you
afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you
and Vigilius in order to a common assembly.(1) But now he had altered his view
would no longer have a synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and
one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him)
should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part
in the synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal
for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his
three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from
three to five bishops of his diocese. * We further declare that we hold fast
to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers,
Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose,
Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus,
Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved
to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain
that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort
you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially
to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and
anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and
we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning
him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated,
as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him.(2) You will
thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore
his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia.
Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after
their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine
of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized
after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had
been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names
in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the case of John and of Flavian
of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople.(3) Moreover we exhort
you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in
which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression "Mother of
God" and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and
Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council
of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of
this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter.
Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning
the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but
deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are
of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more
ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May God keep you,
most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given IV. Nones of May, at
Constantinople, in the xxviith year of the reign of the imperial lord Justinian,
the perpetual Augustus, and in the xiith year after the consulate of the most
illustrious Basil.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.

SESSION VII.

(From
the Paris manuscript found in Hardouin Concilia, Tom. III., 171 et seqq.;
Mansi, Tom. ix., 346
et seqq.
This speech is not found in full in any other
MS. The Ballerini [ Hefele notes] raise objections to the genuineness of the
additions [in Noris. Opp., Tom. IV., 1037], but Hefele does not consider the
objections of serious moment. [Hist. of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 323, note
2.] All the MSS. agree that The most glorious quaester of the sacred palace,
Constantine, was sent by the most pious Emperor, and when he had entered the
Council spake as follows: "Certum est vestrae beatitudini, quantum, etc." The
rest of the speech differs in the different manuscripts. I follow that of Paris.)

You know how much care the most invincible Emperor has always had that the
contention raised up by certain persons with regard to the Three Chapters should
have a termination. ... For this intent he has required themost religious Vigilius
to assemble withyou and draw up a decree on this matter in accordance with
the Orthodox faith. Although therefore, Vigilius has already frequently condemned
the Three Chapters in writing, and has done this also by word of mouth in the
presence of the Emperor, and of the most glorious judges and of many members
of this synod, and has always been ready to smite with anathema the defenders
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the letter which was attributed to Ibas, and
the writings of Theodoret which be set forth against the orthodox faith and
against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril:(1) yet he has refused to do
this in communion with you and your synod.

Yesterday
Vigilius sent Servus Dei, a most reverend Subdeacon of the Roman Church,
and invited Belisarius,(2)
Cethegus, as also Justinus and Constantine
the most glorious consuls, as well as bishops Theodore,Ascidas, Benignus, and
Phocas, to come to him as he wished to give through them an answer to the Emperor.
They came, but speedily returned and informed the most pious lord, that we
had visited Vigilius, the most religious bishop, and that he had said to us: "We
have called you for this reason, that you may know what things have been done
in the past days. To this end I have written a document about the disputed
Three Chapters, addressed to the most pious Emperor,(3) pray be good enough
to read it, and to carry it to his Serenity." But when we had heard this
and had seen the document written to your serenity, we said to him that we
could not by any means receive any document written to the most pious Emperor
without his bidding. "But you have deacons for running with messages,
by whom you can send it." He, however, said to us: "You now know
that I have made the document." But we, bishops, answered him: "If
your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs,
and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give,
in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles
and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as
our head, as a farmer and primate. But if your holiness has drawn up a document
for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them." And
when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who
now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this,
he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named
subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: "We
invited him (you) to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other
religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters.
But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written
by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in
accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such
statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary
to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself
by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have
defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from
you?"

And when this answer was given by the most pious Emperor, he did not send
through the same deacon any document in writing from himself. And all this
was done without writing as also to your blessedness.

[He then, according to all the MSS., presented certain documents to be read,
in the MS. printed by Labbe and Cossart, Tom. V., col. 549 et seqq. These are
fewer than in the Paris MS., which last also contains the following just after
the reading of the documents and after the Council had declared that they proved
the Emperor's zeal for the faith.]

Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, said: While I am still present at
your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been
presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute
(formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no
more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety
which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in
the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are intrusted to you
and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when
you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene
Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the
holy mysteries.

[The letter was then read.]

The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious Emperor is congruous
to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve
unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying
out all things according to the tenor of what has been read. De proposita vero
quaestione quod jam promisimus procedat.

Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the parable in the
Gospel, distributes talents to each man according to his ability, and at the
fitting time demands an account of the work done by every man. And if he to
whom but one talent has been committed is condemned because he has not worked
with it but only kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horrible
judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning himself, but
even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence in the way of others? Since
it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning
the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when
he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.(1)

We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church of the Lord,
fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform the Lord's
work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety
which are being sown by the enemy.

When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to
introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious Theodore,
who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings; and moreover
through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked
epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved
by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and
assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding
of the most religious Emperor.

And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this
royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters,
and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards
he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together
with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might
be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what
had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because
it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common
faith. On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises;
for it was not right that tile scandal with regard to these Three Chapters
should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby. And to this
end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles,
and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit
abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel
of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define
on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until
being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the
testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus
they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: "It
has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden
than these necessary
things, that ye abstain from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy
councils, following the example of tile ancients, have by a common discussion,
disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up,
as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute
was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is
there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are
discussions concerning
the
faith, since each one needs the help of his
neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: "A brother helping his
brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded
kingdom;" and again in Ecclesiastes he says: "Two are better than
one; because they have a good reward for their labour."

So also
the Lord himself says: "Verily
I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything
they shall seek for, they shall
have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

But when
often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had
been sent to
him by the
most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence
himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre): And when we heard this
answer, having the Apostle's admonition in mind, that "each one must,
give an account of himself to God" and fearing the judgment that hangs
over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how
much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor,
and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was
said by God to Paul: "Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am
with thee, and no one can harm thee." Therefore, being gathered together,
before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our
Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through
them to the holy churches, and which they who after thorn were holy fathers
and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that
confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at length set forth, who
were gathered together at Nice, who handed down the holy mathema or creed.
Moreover, the 150 gathered together at Constantinople set forth our faith,
who followed that same confession of faith and explained it. And the consent
of fire 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of
Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at Chalcedon for
the one and the same faith, which they both followed and taught. And all those
wile from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the Catholic
Church, and by the aforesaid four Councils, we confessed that we hold them
condemned and anathematized. And when we had thus made profession of our faith
we began the examination of the Three Chapters, and first we brought into review
the matter of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and when all the blasphemies contained
in his writings were made manifest, we marvelled at the long-suffering of God,
that the tongue and mind which had framed such blasphemies were not immediately
consumed by the divine fire; and we never would have suffered the reader of
the aforenamed blasphemies to proceed, fearing [as we did] the indignation
of God for their record alone (as each blasphemy surpassed its predecessor
in the magnitude of its impiety and moved from its foundation the mind of the
hearer) had it not been that we saw they who gloried in such blasphemies stood
in need of the confusion which would come upon them through their manifestation.
So that all of us, moved with indignation by these blasphemies against God,
both during and after the reading, broke forth into denunciations and anathematisms
against Theodore, as if he had been living and present. O Lord be merciful,
we cried, not even devils have dared to utter such things against thee.

O intolerable
tongue! O the depravity of the man! O that high hand he lifted up against
his Creator!
For the wretched
man who had promised to know the Scriptures,
had no recollection of the words of the Prophet Hosea, "Woe unto them!
for they have fled from me: they are become famous because they were impious
as touching me; they spake iniquities against me, and when they had thought
them out, they spake the violent things against me. Therefore shall they fall
in the snare by reason of the wickedness of their own tongues. Their contempt
shall turn into their own bosom: because they have transgressed my covenant
and have acted impiously against my laws."

To these
curses the impious Theodore is justly subject. For the prophecies concerning
Christ he rejected
and hastened
to destroy, so far as he had the
power, the great mystery of the dispensation for our salvation; attempting
in many ways to show the divine words to be nothing but fables, for the mirth
of the gentiles, and spurned the other prophetic announcements made against
the impious, especially that which the divine Habacuc said of those who teach
falsely, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy
bottle to him and makest him drunken that thou mayest look on their nakedness," that
is, their doctrines full of darkness and altogether foreign to the light.

And why should we add anything further? For anyone can take in his hands the
writings of the impious Theodore or the impious chapters which from his impious
writings were inserted by us in our acts, and find the incredible foolishness
and the detestable things which he said. For we are afraid to proceed further
and again to remember these infamies.

There
was also read to us what had been written by the holy Fathers against him,
and his foolishness
which
exceeded that of all heretics, and moreover
the histories and the imperial laws, setting forth his impiety from the beginning,
and since after all these things the defenders of his impiety, glorying in
the injuries uttered by him against his Creator, said that it was not right
to anathematize him after death, although we knew the ecclesiastical tradition
concerning the impious, that even after death, heretics are anathematized;
nevertheless we thought it necessary concerning this also to make examination,
and there were found in the acts how divers heretics had been anathematized
after death; and in many ways it was manifest to us that those who were saying
this cared nothing for the judgment of God, nor for the Apostolic announcements,
nor for the tradition of the Fathers. And we would like to ask them what they
have to say to the Lord's having said of himself: "Whosoever should have
believed in him, is not judged: but who should not have believed in him is
judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God," and of that exclamation of the Apostle: Although we or an
angel from heaven were to preach to you another gospel than that we have preached
unto you, let him be anathema: as we have said, so now I say again, If anyone
preach to you another gospel than that you have received, let him be anathema."

For when
the Lord says: "he is judged already," and
when the Apostle anathematizes even angels, if they teach anything different
from what we have
preached, how can even those who dare all things, presume to say that these
words refer only to the living? or are they ignorant, or is it not rather that
they feign to be ignorant, that the judgment of anathema is nothing else than
that of separation from God? For the impious person, although he may not have
been verbally anathematized by anyone, nevertheless he really is anathematized,
having separated himself from the true life by his impiety.

For what
have they to answer to the Apostle again when he says, "A man
that is an heretic reject after the first and second corrections. Knowing that
such a man is perverse, and sins, and is condemned by himself."

In accordance with which words Cyril of blessed memory, in the books which
he wrote against Theodore, says as follows: They are to be avoided who are
in the grasp of such awful crimes whether they be among the quick or not. For
it is necessary always to flee from that which is hurtful, and not to have
respect of persons, but to consider what is pleasing to God. And again the
same Cyril of holy memory, writing to John, bishop of Antioch, and to the synod
assembled in that city concerning Theodore who was anathematized together with
Nestorius, says thus: It was therefore necessary to keep a brilliant festival,
since every voice which agreed with the blasphemies of Nestorius had been cast
out no matter whose. For it proceeded against all those who held these same
opinions or had at one time held them, which is exactly what we and your holiness
have said: We anathematize those who say that there are two Sons and two Christs.
For one is he who is preached by us and you, as we have said, Christ, the Son
and Lord, only begotten as man, according to the saying of the most learned
Paul. And also in his letter to Alexander and Martinian and John and Paregorius
and Maximus, presbyters and monastic fathers, and those who with them were
leading the solitary life, he so says: The holy synod of Ephesus, gathered
together according to the will of God against the Nestorian perfidy with a
just and keen sentence condemned together with him the empty words of those
who afterwards should embrace or who had in time past embraced the same opinions
with him, and who presumed to say or write any such thing, laying upon them
an equal condemnation. For it followed naturally that when one was condemned
for such profane emptiness of speech, the sentence should not come against
one only, but (so to speak) against every one of their heresies or calumnies,
which they utter against the pious doctrines of the Christ, worshipping two
Sons, and dividing the indivisible, and bringing in the crime of man-worship
(anthropolatry), both into heaven and earth. For with us the holy multitude
of the supernal spirits adore one Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover several letters
of Augustine, of most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the
African bishops, were read, shewing that it was quite right that heretics should
be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical tradition, the other
most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved: and the holy Roman Church as
well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had
not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each
we have the evidence in our hands.

But since
the disciples of Theodore and of his impiety, who are so manifestly enemies
of the truth,
have attempted
to bring forward certain passages of Cyril
of holy memory and of Proclus, as though they had been written in favour of
Theodore, it is opportune to fit to them the words of the prophet when he says: "The
ways of the Lord are right and the just walk therein; but the wicked shall
be weak in them." For these, evilly receiving the fixings which have been
well and opportunely written by the holy Fathers, and making excuses in their
sins, quote these words. The fathers do not appear as delivering Theodore from
anathema, but rather as economically using certain expressions on account of
those who defended Nestorius and his impiety, in order to draw them away from
this error, and to lead them to perfection and to teach them to condemn not
only Nestorius, the disciple of the impiety, but also his teacher Theodore.
So in these very words of economy the Fathers shew their intention on tiffs
point, that Theodore should be anathematized, as has been abundantly demonstrated
by us in our acts from the writings of Cyril and Proclus of holy memory with
regard to the condemnation of Theodore and his impiety. And such economy is
found in divine Scripture: and it is evident that Paul the Apostle made use
of this in the beginning of his ministry, in relation to those who had been
brought up as Jews, and circumcised Timothy, that by this economy and condescension
he might lead them on to perfection. But afterwards he forbade circumcision,
writing thus to the Galatians: "Behold, I Paul say to you, that if ye
be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing." But we found that that which
heretics were wont to do, the defenders of Theodore had done also. For cutting
out certain of the things which the holy Fathers had written, and placing with
them and mixing up certain false things of their own, they have tried by a
letter of Cyril of holy memory as though from a testimony of the Fathers, to
free from anathema the aforesaid impious Theodore: in which very passages the
truth was demonstrated, when the parts which had been cut off were read in
their proper order, and the falsehood was thoroughly evinced by the collation
of the true. But in all these things, they who spake such vanities, "trusted
in falsehood," as it is written, "they trust in falsehood, and speak
vanity; they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity, weaving the spider's
web." When we had thus considered Theodore and his impiety, we took care
to have re cited and inserted in our acts a few of these things which had been
impiously written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve
Chapters of St. Cyril and against the First Council of Ephesus, also certain
things written by him in defence of those impious ones Theodore and Nestorius,
for the satisfaction of the reader; that all might know that these had been
justly cast out and anathematized. In the third place the letter which is said
to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for
examination, and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately
its impiety was manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation
and anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters, as even to this time there
had been some question on the subject. But because the defenders of these impious
ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm
these persons and their impiety, and were saving that this impious letter,
which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, had been
received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that
the holy synod was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter,
that it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the
favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may confirm their
own impiety. And it was shewn in the acts that in former times Ibas had been
accused because of the very impiety which is contained in this letter; at first
by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by
Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession
to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop
of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot. Afterwards the same
Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric. Such was the state
of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received
by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed
with it throughout? Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the
holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered
to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and
of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of
Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome. And since we had learned from
these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had
been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted
our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was
set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things
in the epistle with this decree. And when this was done it was perfectly clear
that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition.

For the definition agreed with the one and unchanging faith set forth as well
by the 318 holy Fathers as by the 150 and by those who assembled at the first
synod at Ephesus. But that impious letter, on the other hand, contained the
blasphemies of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, and defended them, and
calls them doctors, while it calls the holy Fathers heretics.

And this we made manifest to all, that we did not have any intention of omitting
the Fathers of the first and second interlocutions, which the followers of
Theodore and Nestorius cited on their side, but these and all the others having
been read and their contents examined, we found that the aforesaid Ibas was
not allowed to be received without being compelled to anathematize Nestorius
and his impious teachings, which were defended in that epistle. And this the
rest of the religious bishops of the aforesaid holy Council did as well as
those two whose interlocutions certain tried to use.

For this
they observed in the case of Theodoret, and required him to anathematize
those things of
which he was
accused. If therefore they were willing to allow
the reception of Ibas in no other manner unless he condemned the impiety which
was contained in his letters, and subscribed the definition of faith adopted
by the Council, how can they attempt to make out that this impious letter was
received by the same holy council? For we are taught, "What fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with
darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols."

Having
thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive
the four holy
Synods, that
is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan,
the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach
all that they defined respecting the one faith. And we account those who do
not receive these things aliens from the Catholic Church. Moreover we condemn
and anathematize, together with all the other heretics who have been condemned
and anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy Synods, and by the holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his
impious writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against
the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against
the first Synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of Theodore
and Nestorius. In addition to these we also anathematize the impious Epistle
which Ibas is said to have written to Maris, the Persian, which denies that
God the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary,
and accuses Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth, as an heretic, and
of the same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus
as deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the Twelve
Chapters of the holy Cyril impious, and contrary to the right faith, and defends
Theodorus and Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We therefore
anathematize the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the impious Theodore
of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret
impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas, and their
defenders, and those who have written or do write in defence of them, or who
dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend
their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of
Chalcedon. These things therefore being settled with all accuracy, we, bearing
in remembrance the promises made respecting the holy Church, and who it was
that said that the gates of hell should not prevail against her, that is, the
deadly tongues of heretics; remembering also what was prophesied respecting
it by Hosea, saying, "I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and
thou shalt know the Lord," and numbering together with the devil, the
father of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics who persevered in their impiety
unto death, and their most impious writings, will say to them, "Behold,
all ye kindle a fire, and cause the flame of the fire to grow strong, ye shall
walk in the light of your fire, and the flame which ye kindle." But we,
having a commandment to exhort the people with right doctrine, and to speak
to the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the Church of God, do rightly make haste
to sow in righteousness, and to reap the fruit of life; and kindling for ourselves
the light of knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Fathers,
we have considered it necessary to comprehend in certain Capitula, both the
declaration of the truth, and the condemnation of heretics, and of their wickedness.

THE CAPITULA OF THE COUNCIL.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)

I.

If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone
does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in
three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God
even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom
are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

II.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one
from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in
these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and
glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him
be anathema.

III.

IF anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person] and
the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the
woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was
not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and
made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he
endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema.

IV.

If anyone
shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only according to
grace or energy,
or dignity,
or equality of honour, or authority, or relation,
or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the
Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own
sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends that this union
exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand,
who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man
the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only
designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is
to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge
as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the
flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made
synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person,
to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.
As a matter of fact the word "union" (<greek>ths</greek> <greek>enwsews</greek>)has
many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed
that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced
by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of
Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative
union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of
both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh
synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ
the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are
united, but also allows no separation.

V

If anyone
understands the expression "one only Person of our Lord Jesus
Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if
he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or
two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person
only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely
have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending
that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense,
and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the
flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one
only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense
the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one
of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity
has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

VI.

IF anyone
shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the
holy, glorious,
and ever-virgin
Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call
her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man
and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of
God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man
who was born [of her];(1) if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon
as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious
sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man <greek>anqrwpotokon</greek> or
the Mother of Christ (X<greek>ristotokon</greek>), as if Christ
were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother
of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father
was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not
confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to
be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.

VII.

IF anyone
using the expression, "in two natures," does
not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity
and in the
humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures
of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither
the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the
flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union
being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery
of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures
in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with
taking in a theoretical manner(2) the difference of the natures which compose
him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is
composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number
[two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called:
let him be anathema.(3)

VIII.

IF anyone
uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that
a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the
one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those
expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and
human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but
from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made
by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For
in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity]
we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but
rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was
united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial
with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching
his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the
Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of
Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

IX.

IF anyone
shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures,
in the sense
that he wishes
to introduce thus two adorations,
the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to
the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of
Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously
of one only nature or essence (<greek>fusin</greek> <greek>hgoun</greek> <greek>ousian</greek>)
of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one
adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church
has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

X.

IF anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in
the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let
him be anathema.

XI.

IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris,
Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also
all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone
does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their
impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just
mentioned: let him be anathema.

XII.

IF anyone
defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of
God is one
person, but that
another person is Christ, vexed by the
sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and separated little by
little above that which is inferior, and become better by the progress in good
works and irreproachable in Iris manner of life, as a mere man was baptized
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and obtained
by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship,
and to be worshipped out of regard to the Person of God the Word (just as one
worships the image of an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection,
unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin. And, again, this same
impious Theodore has also said that the union of God the Word with Christ is
like to that which, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, exists between
a man and his wife, "They twain shall be in one flesh." The same
[Theodore] has dared, among numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after
the resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, "Receive
the Holy Ghost," he did not really give them the Holy Spirit, but that
he breathed upon them only as a sign. He likewise has said that the profession
of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands
and the side of the Lord, viz.: "My Lord and my God," was not said
in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle
of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ. And moreover
(which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore in his Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato, Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion,
and says that as each of these men having discovered his own doctrine, had
given his name to his disciples, who were called Platonists, Manicheans, Epicureans
and Marcionites, just so Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had given
the name Christians to his disciples. If, then, anyone shall defend this most
impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies
mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings,
as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis
is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those
who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue
unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

XIII.

IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against
the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St.
Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence
of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions
as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety,
or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess
the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these
impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and
all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril
and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.

XIV.

IF anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris
the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the
Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man
was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one
Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril
as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him
with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this he
vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius
without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle
styles the XII. Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to
the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings
and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and
shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right
or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written
or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained
in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which
it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon,
and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.

THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.

IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the
monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

II.

IF anyone
shall say that the creation (<greek>thu</greek> <greek>paragwghn</greek>)
of all reasonable things includes only intelligences (<greek>noas</greek>)
without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so
that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy,
and by their union with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer desiring
the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following
his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtile,
and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference
of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and
are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and
Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as
there may be: let him be anathema.

III.

IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable
beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards
evil: let him be anathema.

IV.

IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love
had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been
called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have
shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits:
let him be anathema,.

V.

IF anyone
shall say that a psychic (<greek>yukikhn</greek>) condition
has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac
and a human condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human
state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly
virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or from those above
and below: let him be anathema.

VI.

IF anyone
shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the one includes
the souls of
men and
the other the superior spirits who fell to this,
and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has
remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit
is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created(1)
all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth;
and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and
which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image
(<greek>idean</greek>) to which it was formed, was so formed, and
that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but
that it was created by the working intelligence (N<greek>ous</greek> <greek>dhmiourgos</greek>)
which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being:
let him be anathema.

VII.

IF anyone shah say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the
form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and
humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their
expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united
in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he
passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names, became
all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, has clothed I himself
in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to
that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become man
for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Word humbled
himself and became man: let him be anathema.

VIII.

IF anyone
shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same substance with the Father
and the Holy Ghost,
and who was made flesh and became man, one of
the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word, but [shall affirm] that
he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement (<greek>kenwsanta</greek>),
as they call it, of the intelligence (<greek>nous</greek>); if
anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united (<greek>sunhmmenon</greek>)
to God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos
is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converse
that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos: let him be anathema.

IX.

IF anyone
shall say that it was not the Divine Loges made man by taking an animated
body with a <greek>yukh</greek> <greek>logikh</greek> and <greek>noera</greek>,
that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that
it is the N<greek>ous</greek> which has done this, that N<greek>ous</greek> of
which they say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ properly so called, and
that he is become so by the knowledge of the Monad: let him be anathema.

X.

IF anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal,
having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after
the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true
body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of
their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.

XI.

IF anyone
shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body
and that the end
of the story
will be an immaterial <greek>yusis</greek>,
and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit <greek>nous</greek>):
let him be anathema.

XII.

IF anyone
shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits
are united
with the Word
of God in all respects, as the N<greek>ous</greek> which
is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled
itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall
have an end: let him be anathema.

XIII.

IF anyone
shall say that Christ [i.e., the N<greek>ous</greek> is
in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor
by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed
at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [the
N<greek>ous</greek>, as also they were in the reigned pre-existence
of all things: let him be anathema.

XIV.

IF anyone
shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when
the hypostases
as well as the
numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared,
and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of
the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names,
and that there shall be finally an identity of the <greek>gnpsis</greek> and
of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits
only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence: let him
be anathema.

XV.

IF anyone
shall say that the life of the spirits (<greek>nopn</greek>)
shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits
had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike,
and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST ORIGEN.(1)

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. v., col. 677.)

Whoever
says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously
been spirits
and holy powers,
but that, satiated with the vision of God, they
had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out (<greek>apyugeisas</greek>)
and they had therefore become souls (<greek>yukas</greek>) and
had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.

II.

If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united
with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the Virgin, let
him be anathema.

III.

If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first
formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and that afterwards there was united
with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.

IV.

If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly
orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph:
in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema.

V.

If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise
spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema.

VI.

If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the waters
that are above heavens, have souls, and are reasonable beings, let him be anathema.

VII.

If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time will be crucified
for demons as he was for men, let him be anathema.

VIII.

If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited, and that he created
as much as he was able to compass, let him be anathema.

IX.

If anyone
says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary,
and will
one day
have an end, and that a restoration (<greek>apokatastasis</greek>)
will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together
with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine? and to whomsoever there
is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any
time shall presume to protect them.

THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL
SYNOD.

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.

(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the Royal
Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first published, with a Latin
translation and with a dissertation. Both of these with the Greek text are
found in Labbe and Cossart's Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in
Migne's Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts have been expressed
about its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that the learned Jesuit, Garnerius,
in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus's Breviary, has proved its supposititious
character. But the learned have not generally been of this mind but have accepted
the letter as genuine.)

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred
up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object in view,
striving in some way to fulfil his wish to destroy the Church of God spread
over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in ours and in those
of others to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much
that he attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren and fellow bishops,
are stopping in this royal city, and who defend with equal reverence the four
synods, and sincerely persist in the one and the same faith of those four synods,
by his sophistries and machinations he tried to part from them; so that we
ourselves who were and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith,
went apart into discord, brotherly love being despised.(1)

But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the darkness comprehendeth
not, hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath so recalled peace
to the whole world and to the Church, so that what things should be defined
by us have been healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and
through the investigation of the truth.

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of you,
our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say the
Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and
we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And
should there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things which
they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the communion
of the holy and Catholic Church.

Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should know what
we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by this letter. For no
one can doubt how many were the discussions raised on account of the Three
Chapters, that is, concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and
his writings, as well as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning
that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian:
and how diverse were the things spoken and written concerning these Three Chapters.
Now if in every business sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation
of what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame when what
was at first omitted is made public after it is discovered by a further study
of the truth. [And if this is the case in ordinary affairs] how much more in
ecclesiastical strifes should the same dictate of sound reason be observed?
Especially since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed
Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and
a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and corrected
some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and afterward found
out. We, led by their example never gave over the study of the questions raised
by the controversy with regard to the before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor
our search for passages in the writings of our Fathers which were applicable
to the matter.

As a result of this investigation it became evident that in the sayings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia (which are spoken against on all hands) there are contained
very many things contrary to the right faith and to the teachings of the holy
Fathers; and for this very reason these same holy Fathers have left for the
instruction of tile Church treatises which they had written against him.

For among
other blasphemies of his we find that he openly said that God the Word was
one [Person] and
Christ
another [Person], vexed with the passions
of the soul and with the desires of the flesh, and that he little by little
advanced from a lower to a higher stage of excellence by the improvement (<greek>prokiph</greek>,
per profectum operum) of his works, and became irreprehensible in his manner
of life.(1) And further he taught that it was a mere man who was baptized in
the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that he received
through ilia baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited his adoption;
and therefore that Christ could be venerated in the same way that the image
of the Emperor is venerated as being the persona (<greek>eis</greek> <greek>proswpon</greek>)
of God the Word. And he also taught that [only] after his resurrection he became
immutable in his thoughts and altogether impeccable.

Moreover he said that the union of the Word of God was made with Christ as
the Apostle says the union is made between a man and his wife: They twain shall
be one flesh; and that after his resurrection, when the Lord breathed upon
his disciples and said, Receive tile Holy Ghost, he did not give to them the
Holy Spirit. In like strain of profanity he dared to say that the confession
which Thomas made, when he touched the hands and side of the Lord after his
resurrection, saying, My Lord and my God, did not apply to Christ (for Theodore
did not acknowledge Christ to be God); but that Thomas gave glory to God being
filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, and so said these words.

But what is still worse is this, that in interpreting the Acts of the Apostles,
Theodore makes Christ like to Plato, and Manichaeus, and Epicurus, and Marcian,
saying: Just as each of these were the authors of their own peculiar teachings,
and called their disciples after their own names, Platonists, and Munichaeans,
and Epicureans, and Marcionites, just so Christ invented dogmas and called
his followers Christians after himself.

Let therefore the whole Catholic Church know that justly and irreproachably
we have arrived at the conclusions contained in this our constitution. Wherefore
we condemn and anathematize Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his
impious writings, together with all other heretics, who (as is manifest) have
been condemned and anathematized by the four holy Synods aforesaid, and by
the Catholic Church: also the writings of Theodoret which are opposed to the
right faith, and are against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and against
the first Council of Ephesus, which were written by him in defence of Theodore
and Nestorius.

Moreover we anathematize and condemn the letter to the Persian heretic Maris,
which is said to have been written by Ibas, which denies that Christ the Word
was incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and was made
man, but declares that a mere man was born of her, and this man it styles a
temple, so from this we are given to understand that God the Word is one [Person]
and Christ another [Person]. Moreover it calumniates Saint Cyril, the master
and herald of the orthodox faith, calling him a heretic, and charging him with
writing things similar to Apollinaris; and it reviles the first Synod of Ephesus,
as having condemned Nestorius without deliberation or investigation; it likewise
declares the twelve chapters of St. Cyril to be impious and contrary to the
right faith; and further still it defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their
impious teachings and writings. Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid
impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his
impious writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter
said to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned
profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any time
believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or shall attempt
to subvert this present condemnation.

And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow-priests who ever
keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and shall have
condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.

And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours
whatever has been said by me (a me)or by others in defence of the aforesaid
Three Chapters.

Far be it from the Catholic Church that anyone should say that all the blasphemies
above related or they who held and followed such things, were received by the
before-mentioned four synods or by any one of them. For it is most clear, that
no one was admitted by the before-mentioned holy Fathers and especially by
the Council of Chalcedon, about whom there was any suspicion, unless he had
first repelled the above-named blasphemies and all like to them, or else had
denied and condemned the heresy or blasphemies of which he was suspected.

Subscription.

May God preserve thee in health, most honourable brother. Dated VI. Id. Dec.
in the xxijd year of our lord the Emperor Justinian, eternal Augustus, the
xijth year after the consulate of the illustrious Basil.(1)